2013 (6) TMI 784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: This is an appeal filed by the revenue. It is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 25/02/2012 for assessment year 2003-04. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing A.O. not to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 on addition mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a copy was also given to Ld. D.R. After going through the copy of the said order Ld. D.R did not dispute that additions have been deleted in quantum proceedings. However, he relied upon the order passed by Ld. A.O. 3. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully considered. On the issue of pre-payment of taxes addition in the aforementioned order has been deleted by the T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w,. 5. In view of the fact that the issue in appeal is admittedly covered by Special Bench decision in the case of Sulzer India Ltd (supra), we cannot take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Special Bench. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench in the case of Sulzer India Ltd(supra) , we uphold the grievance of the assessee and the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ards the exempt income. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction u/s. 80M in view of the provisions contained in section 115-0 (5) of the I.T.Act, as per the said section, no deduction under any other provisions of the Act shall be allowed to a company or a shareholder in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under sub-section(1) of Section 115-0(5) of the Act. Aggrieved, as....